In this Sunday's newspaper he responds directly to Henry's views. The two men exchanged emails debating the subject, which you can read here.

Now we want to know your views, and we have been promised a response from government.

Has our constitution been subjected to authoritarian vandalism as Henry suggests, or are the laws he reviles in fact a legitimate response to the demands of government and the need to protect us from new forms of crime - including the suicide bomb?

Is the freedom from crime or terror an alienable right that can be traded with, or even trump other freedoms? Does Britain need a written constitution?